Political Discussion

For profit companies and utilities are notorious for not updating their systems in our capitalistic society. Why spend the money to update if what they have works despite being dated, as it's just not financially responsible for the shareholders.
Living this right now. My company is trying everything they can to squeeze efficiency out of it's analysts, but the analysts keep telling the company that the best way to make us more efficient is to update our servers because the old servers take a long time to upload and refresh data each month and makes us sit around and wait for data because the server gets bogged down and it's difficult to run even simple queries sometimes. They keep telling us that they don't have the resources but there's sufficient funds for shareholder dividends.
 
Just read this. And I feel it's complete bullshit and proof manufacturing quality is not the same and and insurance is a scam.

Someone just put a new roof on their house. Bought the same brand / same roofing they had before because they were very happy with it and it lasted 40 years.

A month later they get a storm with hail, nothing major, they have seen much worse. Then they have roof leaks. Verdict, the roofing was damaged by the hail and needs to be replaced. But guess what, this damage is not covered by the warranty or insurance.

Reason being? The roofing wasn't rated for impact (hail) damage. The quality of the shingal is not the same as it was 40 years ago, and what the homeowner considered minor hail damaged the roofing. Where as the old roofing survived much worse. No one mentioned anything about the roofing not being impact rated, or that impact rated roofing exists. And insurance does not cover impact damage unless the roof is rated for it and you have the proper rider on your policy.

Yup, the financial responsibility completely falls on the homeowner and they have to 100% fund replacing the roof again. And this time with impact rated shingles, which are by far more expensive.
 
Last edited:
A committee to investigate a committee? 🤔

what about lower gas prices and inflation? Wasn’t that the priority?

Because you know, the January 6th committee was completely politically motivated and therefor unethical. That is their logic.

As for the other priorities. Why investigate them if you already have a foregone conclusion that Biden is to blame.
 
1671545689175.png

Oh wow, I can't even get a latte with that...

One of the biggest data breaches of all time and they payout is next to nothing. People who lost real money due to identity theft, paid to freeze their credit, bought credit monitoring services or any combination of all 3 are only getting a very small fraction of their money back with this settlement.

And a for profit company and the lawyers are who made out big here. The settlement was the largest in history for data breaches, but the courts allocated something like 90% of the funds to providing "credit monitoring" services and not cash reimbursements. Credit monitoring services which weren't even provided by the settlement until 3 years after the breach was disclosed. And the terms of the settlement was to either take the free credit monitoring services, or file a claim for reimbursements for your losses or expenses you paid for credit monitoring services and/or freezing your credit. Most everyone chose the reimbursements. Many people, like me, already have credit monitoring services from other breaches already.

They tried hard to get people to change their claim to free credit monitoring. Almost nobody did. And now everybody gets almost no money. Well, accept the lawyers, and the for profit company providing the credit monitoring.
 
View attachment 161657

Oh wow, I can't even get a latte with that...

One of the biggest data breaches of all time and they payout is next to nothing. People who lost real money due to identity theft, paid to freeze their credit, bought credit monitoring services or any combination of all 3 are only getting a very small fraction of their money back with this settlement.

And a for profit company and the lawyers are who made out big here. The settlement was the largest in history for data breaches, but the courts allocated something like 90% of the funds to providing "credit monitoring" services and not cash reimbursements. Credit monitoring services which weren't even provided by the settlement until 3 years after the breach was disclosed. And the terms of the settlement was to either take the free credit monitoring services, or file a claim for reimbursements for your losses or expenses you paid for credit monitoring services and/or freezing your credit. Most everyone chose the reimbursements. Many people, like me, already have credit monitoring services from other breaches already.

They tried hard to get people to change their claim to free credit monitoring. Almost nobody did. And now everybody gets almost no money. Well, accept the lawyers, and the for profit company providing the credit monitoring.
I dare you to report that transaction as fraud...
 

We live in strange and trying times. I fear for what the future holds.


  • ⁠She took her daughter to see a Rockette’s show, and the facial recognition software recognized her and security removed her from the show claiming she was blacklisted.
  • Mom is a lawyer with a firm that sued a Madison Square Garden Entertainment (MSG) subsidiary and the case is still ongoing. It is about a personal injury case at a restaurant owned by MSG, however she herself is not on that case.
  • ⁠Rockettes are another MSG subsidiary. MSG has a policy of not allowing people involved in litigation against MSG attend MSG events and they claim to have informed her about this.
  • ⁠Critics claim this is just be used to punish people who would dare sue their multi-billion dollar company.

TLDR: Mom is a lawyer for a firm that is suing a smaller company that is a subsidiary under the same bigger company as the Rockettes (or maybe just Radio City Music Hall). That’s why she was banned.

Imagine being tangentially involved to a lawsuit against a McDonalds and then all McDonalds ban you. This feels similarly silly.
 
Last edited:
Student loans relief may be seen as part of the retirement bill as currently proposed. It for sure is not any kind of forgiveness, and for sure is not popular with Republicans or corporate lobbyist. And it really isn't student loan relief at that, but more of retirement savings relief.

But this bill intends to solve an issue where many young adults are unable to afford to contribute to their 401k because of their student loans. Under the proposed bill, if an employees are not putting money into their 401k, or are not putting enough in to make the full employer match criteria, employers then must match against what the employee is paying towards their student loans. This match wouldn't be towards student loan payments, but rather towards the 401k. So employees could pay their student loans, and still get the company match on their 401k if they aren't currently contributing to one.
 
Student loans relief may be seen as part of the retirement bill as currently proposed. It for sure is not any kind of forgiveness, and for sure is not popular with Republicans or corporate lobbyist. And it really isn't student loan relief at that, but more of retirement savings relief.

But this bill intends to solve an issue where many young adults are unable to afford to contribute to their 401k because of their student loans. Under the proposed bill, if an employees are not putting money into their 401k, or are not putting enough in to make the full employer match criteria, employers then must match against what the employee is paying towards their student loans. This match wouldn't be towards student loan payments, but rather towards the 401k. So employees could pay their student loans, and still get the company match on their 401k if they aren't currently contributing to one.

What is it about policies like this that scream "socialism" to the right. And forcing a private business to pay towards someone's retirement fund is over reach of government power and unfair to those who did not go to college or didn't have the same benefits when they were younger. And thus that is why a law like this should never exist. It comes down to "personal responsibility". And if someone can't afford to contribute towards their 401k to earn the company match it's because of poor life choices / financial responsibilities they made. They should be accountable for getting them selves out of this situation rather than be getting "handouts".

And it sucks because I can't even have a meaningful debate with someone with this viewpoint. Because no mater what you come to the table with "they are right" and "you know it".
 
What is it about policies like this that scream "socialism" to the right. And forcing a private business to pay towards someone's retirement fund is over reach of government power and unfair to those who did not go to college or didn't have the same benefits when they were younger. And thus that is why a law like this should never exist. It comes down to "personal responsibility". And if someone can't afford to contribute towards their 401k to earn the company match it's because of poor life choices / financial responsibilities they made. They should be accountable for getting them selves out of this situation rather than be getting "handouts".

And it sucks because I can't even have a meaningful debate with someone with this viewpoint. Because no mater what you come to the table with "they are right" and "you know it".

Why do you want to debate these people? If their minds are that closed you aren’t going to convince them otherwise.
 
Why do you want to debate these people? If their minds are that closed you aren’t going to convince them otherwise.

They are family. And grew up in one of the most liberal places in the state, Amherst. I don't get how their minds can be so closed. Especially when they all were democrats before Trump.
 
They are family. And grew up in one of the most liberal places in the state, Amherst. I don't get how their minds can be so closed. Especially when they all were democrats before Trump.

Family are absolutely the last people on earth that I talk to politics about. Ever.

Lots of people drift right as they get older and more secure and paranoid about people coming to steal their “hard earned” money.

Also Trump didn’t come to power in a vacuum or as a bolt from the blue, it was a mixture of playing on and amplifying existing prejudices and the Democrats picking a very hate-able candidate.
 
What is it about policies like this that scream "socialism" to the right. And forcing a private business to pay towards someone's retirement fund is over reach of government power and unfair to those who did not go to college or didn't have the same benefits when they were younger. And thus that is why a law like this should never exist. It comes down to "personal responsibility". And if someone can't afford to contribute towards their 401k to earn the company match it's because of poor life choices / financial responsibilities they made. They should be accountable for getting them selves out of this situation rather than be getting "handouts".

And it sucks because I can't even have a meaningful debate with someone with this viewpoint. Because no mater what you come to the table with "they are right" and "you know it".
I mean, it is a socialist policy. The problem is not socialism, it's removing the stigma of the word.

What's a real shame is that many of these folks who argue against things like this came up through a time when their parents (or themselves) were basically paid more than we are now (wages are fairly stagnant since the 70s but inflation means those dollars are worth less - if my wife and I made what we make now just 20 years ago, we would be a lot better off) and were part of a corporate world that did more than just pay a wage. Instead, we are increasingly asked to do more work for the same (or less) money and less benefits. But wanting the government to step in to increase wages or ensure the welfare of workers that companies aren't doing on their own is overstep.

Also, I think speaking politics with family when they disagree is bad form. It just leads to lots of heartache. My wife's family are all right minded and I just can't talk it with them. When they bring nonsense up, we change the subject or leave the room. It's just easier than getting into arguments that no one is going to "win." I'm fortunate in that my parents and grandparents and my mother's side of the family are all like minded as my wife and I. I lean more socialist than my wife does, but I think that is because she was raised capitalist by right wing nut jobs, so just getting her to be on this side of the fence is a good damn thing. She was also pretty apolitical until we started dating and then she realized that complacency was akin to complicity with the wave of nonsense coming from the right.
 
Back
Top